Space first stage recovery.

In article om,
says...

On 2016-01-01 13:44, Jeff Findley wrote:

It's a structural test article. But as I said, I believe that ESA's
flight proven ATV (ISS cargo delivery vehicle) is the basis for the
Orion service module, so it's not like ESA is creating something
completely new.


Did ATV goto Mars ? Moon ? Are the ATV orbital engines able to have the
trust necessary to goto the Moon (and hopefully gosub Moon) ? Or will
new engines be developped ?

It's a propulsion module! It doesn't care *where* it goes, it just
fires its engines and/or RCS thrusters when commanded!

NOTE: ATV was designed with *quad* redundant systems (i.e. man-rated).
It's systems are *more* than adequate for Orion.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/ATV

Note the most recent news on the ATV website is about the Orion
propulsion module testing and contains good information (from ESA's
point of view) about this program:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Hu...s_European_mod
ule_ready_for_testing

Is the software/guidance going to be used unchanged in the Orion Service
module ? or will it be rewritten, with new interfaces to Orion, which
didn't exist with ATV ?

ESA may have experience with ATV, but that doesn't mean that the service
module will be just an ATV with minor modifications.

Why not? ESA designed it to be used in the future with a possible ESA
capsule design. Using it with Orion won't be that much different than
its original intended future purpose. Certainly ESA and NASA will have
to work on integrating it with Orion, but they've had a working
relationship for a *long* time.

Remember Spacelab that flew in the shuttle payload bay many times when
NASA could not afford to build a space station? That was an ESA module!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacelab

NASA has been trusting the lives of its astronauts inside ESA modules for decades!

They plan on making more engines. A cost reduced version of the
SSME
which is more suitable for an expendable launch vehicle than the
original (presumably more expensive to manufacture) SSME.

By the time they get to that point, Elon will have proven Falcon9's
capabilities and much lower cost, and NASA will likely request SLS be
canned and that Orion be launched on Falcon.

I agree that once Falcon Heavy is flying, I don't see why Orion could
not fly on top of it. Since Orion was designed for a worst case
scenario involving the solids on SLS, the escape system on Orion would
be more than capable of pulling it away from a malfunctioning Falcon
Heavy.

But, Congress is hell bent on continuing funding for SLS so I really
don't see that happening unless something really bad happens with SLS
(like it goes *boom* on its first test flight).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 1/2/16 11:35 AM, Jeff Findley wrote :

But, Congress is hell bent on continuing funding for SLS so I really
don't see that happening unless something really bad happens with SLS
(like it goes *boom* on its first test flight).

For SLS, I wouldn't say that going boom on its first test flight is
something really bad. As you say, it would probably put it out of its
misery. :-)


Alain Fournier

I do wonder how hard it would be for space X to build a falcon equivalent of SLS orion? with at least first stage be fly and reuse?

I wonder how much of the billion bucks a launch for SLS could be saved??

In article m,
says...

On 2016-01-02 11:35, Jeff Findley wrote:

It's a propulsion module! It doesn't care *where* it goes, it just
fires its engines and/or RCS thrusters when commanded!

Does this mean that the autopilot logic used for ATV to get to station
vicinity will not be used and all the logic will be done by Orion and
written by NASA ?

Unsure. But, with astronauts on board, there will most certainly be a
"manual override" for any scenario where the automatic systems don't
operate as intended.

Are the ATV engines as powerfull as the Apollo service module ? Or is
that not necessary because they can just fire for longer period ?

The Apollo SM engine was sized to place a fully fueled LEM into lunar
orbit. Orion won't be doing anything quite like that for a Mars
mission. ATV derived engines are more than capable for what Orion is
planned to do.


http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Hu...s_European_mod
ule_ready_for_testing

Thanks for the link. I had the impression that this was must a shape
mockup, but this test article seems faily well popuylated even with the
thruster nozzles.

Would the test article contain any electronics to ensure they survice
the shake/bake testing ?

One thing that struck me:
##
The module sits directly below Orion?s crew capsule and provides
propulsion, power, thermal control, and water and air for four
astronauts. The solar array spans 19 m and provides enough to power two
households.
##


I thought Orion was designed for 7 cremembers ? has NASA silently
reduced crew capacity to 4 ? Just an error on ESA,s web page ? Or are
there plans for a 2nd generation service module that will support 7
crewmembers ?

Duration would depend on the mission and size of crew (the space shuttle
flew with various crew sizes too).

NASA has been trusting the lives of its astronauts inside ESA
modules for decades!

Am not debating ESA's capabilities. Just being realistic on the
integration problems with a totally new vehicle.

Except the Orion service module is not totally new. It's directly
derived from the ESA ATV's service module since it serves almost exactly
the same role.

BYW, how does the service module connect with Orion ? a trap door in the
heat shield where O2, N2, electrical, water, data connect ? Once Orion
separates, the trap door closes ?

Possibly. The shuttle did that, and so did Blue Gemini (which was test
flown). Either that or an umbilical that wraps around the edge of the
heat shield just like on the Apollo CSM design. NASA has two options
here that have both been flight proven.

But, Congress is hell bent on continuing funding for SLS so I really
don't see that happening unless something really bad happens with SLS
(like it goes *boom* on its first test flight).

It is a fair bet that NASA will get to destroy the remaining shuttle
engines. Once NASA goes to congress to ask for more SSMEs to be built,
the buck may stop there.


I take it Boeing is the main beneficiary of a contract to build more
SSMEs ?


No, Boeing does not make large liquid fueled engines. The contract went
to Aerojet Rocketdyne, the same company which produced the original
SSMEs.

https://www.rocket.com/article/nasa-...cketdyne-sign-
contract-restart-production-rs-25-engine-space-launch

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

I do wonder how hard it would be for space X to build a falcon
equivalent of SLS orion? with at least first stage be fly and reuse?

That would be their next generation launch vehicle (LOX/methane) and
crewed vehicle (Mars Colonial Transport or MCT). No idea how much money
or time will be required. But, Musk thinks long term, so everything
being done with Falcon and Dragon are steps along the path to Mars.

Most importantly, making money in space means money to invest in the
future, just like he's done with Tesla. How else to fund and find
investors for the biggest rechargeable battery factory in the world
(Gigafactory)?

I wonder how much of the billion bucks a launch for SLS could be saved??

Doesn't matter. Congress doesn't care about saving money. In fact,
they really only care about *spending* money in certain districts.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Doesn't matter. Congress doesn't care about saving money. In fact,
they really only care about *spending* money in certain districts.


you know this is the problem that is wrecking our country

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

And how will SpaceX make its capsules re-usable ? Won't the impact of
landing on land cause some structural issues with the capsule ?


How hard do you think the thing is hitting? They'll make them
reusable by designing it in at the start. They land under power. How
much 'structural impact' is there to airplanes landing on land?

Specifically, the Super Draco engines on the capsule will be used to
soft land the capsule. The parachutes won't be used on a "nominal"
landing, but are there as a backup and in off-nominal cases like a
launch abort. In other words, Dragon V2 will land very similarly to how
the Falcon 9 first stage recently landed.

No doubt this won't happen right away on manned Dragon V3 missions to
ISS since NASA will likely dictate a "tried and trusted" landing mode,
just like Orion. Unfortunately, innovation in manned spaceflight really
isn't NASA's strong suit these days. :-(

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article om,
says...

On 2016-01-04 16:16, Fred J. McCall wrote:

The salt water and that the heat shield apparently isn't as good as
what's being used on Dragon V2. Dragon V2 is supposed to be able to
fly 10 times or so before it needs major refurbishment.

I was under the impression they'd be spraying a new ablative heat shield
before every flight ?

Nope, should be good for 10 flights without *any* refurbishment. Here
is a quote from Elon (made at the Dragon V2 unveiling):

How many flights can Dragon v2 fly without any refurbishment?
We're aiming for ten flights without any significant refurbishment
and then the thing that would have to be refurbished is the main
heat shield, but that remains to be seen. The heat shield material
is called PICA-X version three, which is a phenolic impregnated
carbon ablator. With each version we've been able to reduce the
amount of recession that occurs in the heat shield. You can think
of the heat shield like it's a giant brake pad, basically. The
better that material technology gets, the more uses it can go
through - just like a brake pad on a car, eventually it does need
to be replaced, but I think we can eventually get up to, maybe,
100 flights or something like that.

Is there a point in making the shield thick enough
for 10 flights since that is bound to add weight to the capsules for the
early flights ? (why carry the portion of the blative shield that will
be used 9 flights later ?)

Minimizing mass to razor thin margins is the "old space" way of doing
things and tends to be rather expensive. SpaceX does not do that, which
is why Falcon 9 is sized quite a bit bigger than it needs to be. The
extra size allows the first stage to land at the launch site. An "old
space" engineer would see this as waste, but then an "old space"
engineer was never concerned about the economics of reuse.

How hard do you think the thing is hitting? They'll make them
reusable by designing it in at the start. They land under power. How
much 'structural impact' is there to airplanes landing on land?

Plane lands on tires on runway with shock absorbers and at a very low
descent rate.

Unless they land on that mattress factory in Gotham City (the one that
allowed Batman and Robin to land safely after their helicopter failed),
there is bound to be some shock and scrapes as it touches ground. When
you look at soyuz, they need perfectly contoured seats for each occupant
to widthstand that landing.

Wrong.

Or will dragon have much mreo powerful landing rockets to provide
smoother landing ?

Completely different than Soyuz. Soyuz fires small rockets to cushion a
parachute landing. During a nominal landing, Dragon V2 will land under
power using the Super Dracos and the parachutes will *not* be deployed.
The landing should be quite gentle for Dragon V2 because of this.

The Super Dracos are powerful enough to double as launch escape rockets
in an emergency. Don't you remember the Dragon V2 launch escape test?
That thing took off of the ground like a banshee (under Super Draco
power), deployed its parachutes, and safely splashed down in the ocean.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-01-05 13:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Pretty sure I read somewhere that NASA is going to fly 4 (vice 7)
people and require parachute landings. In other words, force Dragon
V2 into the same mould as the other capsules. SpaceX is pricing
things accordingly.

But that still means firing the engines for the landing, right ?


Wrong. They'll do water landings.

Because if you're NASA, if you're not landing exactly like we did in the
1960's, you're not doing it right. Today's NASA is so risk averse it's
holding back significant advancements in manned space that would reduce
costs.

Sometimes too much of a focus on safety is detrimental. This is one of
those times.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-01-05 13:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Pretty sure I read somewhere that NASA is going to fly 4 (vice 7)
people and require parachute landings. In other words, force Dragon
V2 into the same mould as the other capsules. SpaceX is pricing
things accordingly.

But that still means firing the engines for the landing, right ?

With a parachute deployed, does that absolutely preclude engines
being used except for last few feet ? Engines could still slow
descent and steer the craft with parachutes still staying "inflated"
above.

They already have the engines on board to use for launch escape.
Using parachutes as (part of) the primary landing procedure means
adding complexity to the 'chutes - either steerable parachutes or
coding the landing program(s) to deal with being more at the mercy of
the wind(s) while coming down on parachutes, without removing any of
the engines or, presumably their fuel, which must remain for launch
escape.

rick jones
--
the road to hell is paved with business decisions...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...